Anti-Choice Groups 'Flooding Congress' with Calls to Defund Planned Parenthood

Anti-Choice Groups ‘Flooding Congress’ with Calls to Defund Planned Parenthood

Anti-abortion extremists declare full scale war against Planned Parenthood

HealthMarch 2011 • Views: 23,690

A coalition of extremist anti-abortion groups (including video fraudster Lila Rose, left) has launched an effort to flood Congress with calls to defund Planned Parenthood.

They claim to have a million people ready to do this, and it may even be true.

Today, the Susan B. Anthony List, Family Research Council Action, 40 Days for Life, Students for Life of America, Concerned Women for America, Catholic Vote, lifenews.com, American Values and Catholic Advocate launched a grassroots campaign to flood the phones of Members of Congress, asking them to defund Planned Parenthood in the Continuing Resolution (CR). From Monday, March 21 to Friday, March 25, SBA List and other members of the Expose Planned Parenthood coalition will mobilize pro-life activists to call and visit district offices and attend town hall meetings while their representatives are in their home districts, asking them to defund Planned Parenthood in the next CR.

“The momentum behind defunding Planned Parenthood is building,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “The message from the grassroots has been clear: the time to end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood is right now. Whether in a short-term or long-term Continuing Resolution, defunding Planned Parenthood in this bill is a non-negotiable.”

Lila Rose, President of Live Action, filmed a grassroots call-to-action in the nation’s capital, announcing the Week of Action campaign. Available here, the video asks pro-life activists to join in the effort to defund Planned Parenthood of the $363M it receives in government funds each year by contacting their Members of Congress during the Week of Action.

Notice how these organizations work hard to present themselves as “women’s groups.” All the main spokespersons are female, and they give the groups conspicuously female names, in an effort to mask the true intent: rolling back 50 years worth of progress in reproductive health, and a woman’s right to decide the fate of her own body. It’s similar to the turnspeak of creationists, who cloak their atavistic legislation under the title “academic freedom.”

The goal is to present themselves as something they are not.

Planned Parenthood Under Attack by Extremist Lila Rose

Jump to bottom

43 comments

lanaty Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:24:53pm

[Link: www.simoleonsense.com...]

Oh, so they fail at step 1? That was easy!

Kragar Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:28:15pm

re: #1 lanaty

[Link: www.simoleonsense.com...]

Oh, so they fail at step 1? That was easy!

Unfortunately, rational discussions are not part of the political process.

Targetpractice Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:31:38pm

Seems the Right has decided that overturning RvW is going to be awhile in coming, so their means of shutting down abortion are simply to make it impossible to obtain one unless you're rich or well-connected. You know, like in the "good ol' days."

Simply Sarah Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:31:53pm

They claim to have a million people ready to do this, and it may even be true.

That would be rather concerning. Normally, getting that number of people to contact members of Congress would have a fairly significant impact on how people would vote. I'm pretty sure it won't be enough here, since I'd assume 67 Senate votes would be required, but it makes me extremely uneasy all the same.

jamesfirecat Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:33:00pm

Jobs!

Simply Sarah Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:33:35pm

re: #3 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Seems the Right has decided that overturning RvW is going to be awhile in coming, so their means of shutting down abortion are simply to make it impossible to obtain one unless you're rich or well-connected. You know, like in the "good ol' days."

Well, except that instead of "shutting down abortion", all this would do is result in more women seeking them, more children that cannot be cared for by their parent(s), and more women getting sick or dying due to a lack of proper health care.

Big Steve Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:34:25pm

Personally, I find the whole "women's groups" (pro or against) or "women's reproductive rights" as red herring in the abortion debate. Both reproducing oneself AND deciding when and how to do it is not a gender specific right that only one sex has. It is all our right. People attempting to outlaw abortion are just as much anti-male choice as anti-female choice. Included in this is the argument of a "woman's right to chose" should not be something the government can legislate. The goverment does have, and should have the right to determine what surgical procedures are allowable or not regardless of gender. There are both legal and illegal prostate cancer treatments that affect only men.

So I wish that we could just go gender neutral here. And by the way, I am firmly 100% pro abortion rights

elizajane Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:34:26pm

They've just found a bandwagon they can usefully jump onto: the defunding one. Because of the deeply unserious nature of discourse on the national budget problem, you need only say "defund!" and you sound like you're trying sincerely to fix a problem.

Billions of dollars in debt? Just defund something! NPR! Planned Parenthood! Anything (as long as we and our corporate sponsors don't like it)!

That's the Republicans, folks, showing how seriously they care about the real issues facing the nation.

Targetpractice Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:36:00pm

re: #6 Simply Sarah

Well, except that instead of "shutting down abortion", all this would do is result in more women seeking them, more children that cannot be cared for by their parent(s), and more women getting sick or dying due to a lack of proper health care.

God's plan, dontchaknow?

///(I feel dirty just typing that.)

Thorzdad Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:36:03pm

It boggles the mind to think just how screwed-up these jokers are going to make this country before the voters finally wake-up and get them the hell out.

Unfortunately, I'm still not optimistic about 2012, even with this apparent all-out assault on everyone below the upper 10%.

jamesfirecat Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:36:20pm

re: #7 Big Steve

Personally, I find the whole "women's groups" (pro or against) or "women's reproductive rights" as red herring in the abortion debate. Both reproducing oneself AND deciding when and how to do it is not a gender specific right that only one sex has. It is all our right. People attempting to outlaw abortion are just as much anti-male choice as anti-female choice. Included in this is the argument of a "woman's right to chose" should not be something the government can legislate. The goverment does have, and should have the right to determine what surgical procedures are allowable or not regardless of gender. There are both legal and illegal prostate cancer treatments that affect only men.

So I wish that we could just go gender neutral here. And by the way, I am firmly 100% pro abortion rights

At the end of the day... no pregnancy has ever suffered such severe complications that it has killed the man involved.

Thus I think its foolish to try and paint abortion as a gender blind issue.

Feline Fearless Leader Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:36:40pm

re: #8 elizajane

They've just found a bandwagon they can usefully jump onto: the defunding one. Because of the deeply unserious nature of discourse on the national budget problem, you need only say "defund!" and you sound like you're trying sincerely to fix a problem.

Billions of dollars in debt? Just defund something! NPR! Planned Parenthood! Anything (as long as we and our corporate sponsors don't like it)!

That's the Republicans, folks, showing how seriously they care about the real issues facing the nation.

Obviously the greatest issue facing the country at this moment is that the GOP is not as thoroughly in charge of it as they should be!
//

Ojoe Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:39:14pm

a woman’s right to decide the fate of her own body.

Some will argue that we all belong to the Creator, the young, the old, male, female, the born and the unborn alike.

webevintage Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:39:35pm

I hate these people.
Hate.
Them.
Fire of a 1000 burning suns hatred.

God, if it was really about abortion maybe my hatred would be less.
But it is not about abortion, not really.
It is about going after anything that helps the working and middle class.
PP provides health care to working and middle class women so this is the way to deal with those of us who would use a service that....

You know what.
I can't even finish this.
TEAGop Forced Birth Zealots can just go fuck themselves.

jamesfirecat Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:39:52pm

re: #13 Ojoe

Some will argue that we all belong to the Creator, the young, the old, male, female, the born and the unborn alike.

Yes, but does a woman's body belong to her unborn child?

Because if it doesn't why does that child get to use the mother's organs without her permission?

Ojoe Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:41:17pm

Because if it doesn't why does that child get to use the mother's organs without her permission?

Nature planned it that way I guess.

wrenchwench Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:41:35pm

re: #7 Big Steve

Personally, I find the whole "women's groups" (pro or against) or "women's reproductive rights" as red herring in the abortion debate. Both reproducing oneself AND deciding when and how to do it is not a gender specific right that only one sex has. It is all our right. People attempting to outlaw abortion are just as much anti-male choice as anti-female choice. Included in this is the argument of a "woman's right to chose" should not be something the government can legislate. The goverment does have, and should have the right to determine what surgical procedures are allowable or not regardless of gender. There are both legal and illegal prostate cancer treatments that affect only men.

So I wish that we could just go gender neutral here. And by the way, I am firmly 100% pro abortion rights

You have a point or two there, but I've always been OK with the proposition that only fertile women should vote on abortion issues. Certainly you don't have the same right to HAVE an abortion that a woman does, nor to prevent her from doing so.

jamesfirecat Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:42:18pm

re: #16 Ojoe

Nature planned it that way I guess.

Sorry, but nature doesn't get a vote in the American Court Justice System.

Simply Sarah Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:42:42pm

re: #11 jamesfirecat

At the end of the day... no pregnancy has ever suffered such severe complications that it has killed the man involved.

Thus I think its foolish to try and paint abortion as a gender blind issue.

This is very true, but I what believe he was trying to say is that abortions aren't something women always just go off and do by themselves. While it may not impact them nearly as directly, there can be one or more men involved (Spouse, boyfriend, supportive relative, etc.) in making the choice and that can have to deal with the results of being denied it. I mean, in the end, it's (or should be) up to the woman and, clearly, it hits closest to home for us, but this isn't something that happens in the bubble. I'm not sure I'd say that it's equally anti-male (Or intended as anti-male, since it normally isn't), but it does end up hurting men as well as women.

wrenchwench Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:42:51pm

re: #16 Ojoe

Nature planned it that way I guess.

If you want to go by Nature's plan, something like 50% of fertilizations don't implant. Some plan, eh?

I Am Kreniigh! Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:43:16pm

Planned Parenthood is dead! Long live Unplanned Pregnancy!

jamesfirecat Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:43:24pm

re: #19 Simply Sarah

This is very true, but I what believe he was trying to say is that abortions aren't something women always just go off and do by themselves. While it may not impact them nearly as directly, there can be one or more men involved (Spouse, boyfriend, supportive relative, etc.) in making the choice and that can have to deal with the results of being denied it. I mean, in the end, it's (or should be) up to the woman and, clearly, it hits closest to home for us, but this isn't something that happens in the bubble. I'm not sure I'd say that it's equally anti-male (Or intended as anti-male, since it normally isn't), but it does end up hurting men as well as women.

Its Anti-sex (or at least anti-fun sex) is what it is....

Targetpractice Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:43:43pm

re: #13 Ojoe

Some will argue that we all belong to the Creator, the young, the old, male, female, the born and the unborn alike.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still haven't made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

- Rush, "Freewill"

Kragar Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:45:36pm

Of course you want to outlaw abortions when you're setting up childhood diseases to make a come back. You'll need to make sure you have enough workers to man the factories once you factor in the kids who died due illness.

Big Steve Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:45:42pm

re: #11 jamesfirecat

At the end of the day... no pregnancy has ever suffered such severe complications that it has killed the man involved.

Thus I think its foolish to try and paint abortion as a gender blind issue.

As has there never been a female fatality from a botched prostate surgery. The argument is:

1. The government does have the right to legislate surgical procedures.

2. Some procedures are done strictly on women and some on men.

Ergo.....the argument should strictly be on whether a procedure remains legal or not and is not dependent on the sex it is performed on.

So when the debate gets into it is evil "men" or "old men legistators" or the "patricarchy" that are trying to outlaw abortion then you hand the other side such an easy refutation....all they have to find is some women on their side and your argument is mute.

Vicious Michigan Union Thug Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:47:29pm

re: #24 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Of course you want to outlaw abortions when you're setting up childhood diseases to make a come back. You'll need to make sure you have enough workers to man the factories once you factor in the kids who died due illness.

If we want to bring jobs back to America we have to re-open the Triangle Shirtwaist Company!

Simply Sarah Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:47:47pm

re: #17 wrenchwench

You have a point or two there, but I've always been OK with the proposition that only fertile women should vote on abortion issues. Certainly you don't have the same right to HAVE an abortion that a woman does, nor to prevent her from doing so.

I think a better solution is not having anyone vote on abortion issues, but that's probably wishing for too much.

Big Steve Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:49:15pm

re: #17 wrenchwench

You have a point or two there, but I've always been OK with the proposition that only fertile women should vote on abortion issues. Certainly you don't have the same right to HAVE an abortion that a woman does, nor to prevent her from doing so.

If we only let young men of draftable age vote on declarations of war,
I bet we would have a lot less wars!

McSpiff Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:49:30pm

re: #27 Simply Sarah

I think a better solution is not having anyone vote on abortion issues, but that's probably wishing for too much.

Canada doesn't really have any law concerning abortion. Works out pretty well IMO.

_RememberTonyC Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:50:05pm

I am a right of center leaning Independent (kind of a liberal conservative-or maybe a conservative liberal), but as long as the GOP insists on trying to overturn Roe v Wade and limit women's ability to choose, I promise I will never register as a Republican, nor will I even consider donating one cent to their party.

Maybe the GOP doesn't care, but there are probably many like me out there and we vote in every election.

Simply Sarah Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:51:08pm

re: #29 McSpiff

Canada doesn't really have any law concerning abortion. Works out pretty well IMO.

I can't see the U.S. being able to get to that point at any time in the foreseeable future. Probably not a few generations, at least.

webevintage Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:51:59pm

Women will never, ever be equal to men in this country until we have complete control over our wombs.
That's it.

Sol Berdinowitz Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:53:08pm

Girls just wanna de-fund

Kragar Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:54:58pm

re: #33 ralphieboy

Girls just wanna de-fund

/groan

wrenchwench Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:55:47pm

re: #28 Big Steve

If we only let young men of draftable age vote on declarations of war,
I bet we would have a lot less wars!

Really poor analogy.

McSpiff Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:55:52pm

re: #31 Simply Sarah

I can't see the U.S. being able to get to that point at any time in the foreseeable future. Probably not a few generations, at least.

Kind of happened by accident. Our Supreme Court over ruled the existing ban on abortions, and we had an election before new legislation concerning abortion could be passed (or the bill failed to make it out of committee... can't remember now). No one has bothered to revisit. Its one of those funny things that makes me insanely proud to be Canadian. "Its legal, no more no less" is my ideal government position. Although access varies by province a bit, etc it seems like the right system for us.

Simply Sarah Thu, Mar 24, 2011 12:58:50pm

re: #36 McSpiff

Kind of happened by accident. Our Supreme Court over ruled the existing ban on abortions, and we had an election before new legislation concerning abortion could be passed (or the bill failed to make it out of committee... can't remember now). No one has bothered to revisit. Its one of those funny things that makes me insanely proud to be Canadian. "Its legal, no more no less" is my ideal government position. Although access varies by province a bit, etc it seems like the right system for us.

On the other hand, you also have to go out and vote in a new election every six months or so.
/

Feline Fearless Leader Thu, Mar 24, 2011 1:00:23pm

re: #19 Simply Sarah

This is very true, but I what believe he was trying to say is that abortions aren't something women always just go off and do by themselves. While it may not impact them nearly as directly, there can be one or more men involved (Spouse, boyfriend, supportive relative, etc.) in making the choice and that can have to deal with the results of being denied it. I mean, in the end, it's (or should be) up to the woman and, clearly, it hits closest to home for us, but this isn't something that happens in the bubble. I'm not sure I'd say that it's equally anti-male (Or intended as anti-male, since it normally isn't), but it does end up hurting men as well as women.

Stan: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

And once again we reach ground and find that Monty Python has already trod upon it.
:)

Lidane Thu, Mar 24, 2011 1:06:48pm

The goal is to present themselves as something they are not.

Yep. Just like the Club For Growth.

BARACK THE VOTE Thu, Mar 24, 2011 1:38:09pm

re: #32 webevintage

Women will never, ever be equal to men in this country until we have complete control over our wombs.
That's it.

This, times a hundred. Autonomy is all we're asking for. I can't be forced to donate blood or bone marrow even if it would save someone's life-- but people want to force women to, say, bear their rapist's child.

Think about it. Just insanity. Talk about a double standard.

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Mar 24, 2011 2:50:17pm

re: #3 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Seems the Right has decided that overturning RvW is going to be awhile in coming, so their means of shutting down abortion are simply to make it impossible to obtain one unless you're rich or well-connected. You know, like in the "good ol' days."

the haves and the havenots, always

HappyWarrior Thu, Mar 24, 2011 3:34:06pm

Congressman Connolly who represents the district my college is in spoke to the College Dems here on campus last night. He made the point that many have made that PP provides health care and many medical services to poor women. And it's been pointed out already but federal funding of abortion is illegal already via the Hyde Amendment. This is just another attack on the less fortunate by the GOP.

petero1818 Thu, Mar 24, 2011 6:33:21pm

re: #37 Simply Sarah

On the other hand, you also have to go out and vote in a new election every six months or so.
/

Sometimes we can go 5 years, other times you are correct it could be 6 months. On the bright side, the entire election cycle is only a few months. As opposed to voting every 2 or 4 years, but having a 24 month election run up cycle as you do.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Anti-Choice Groups ‘Flooding Congress’ with Calls to Defund Planned Parenthood

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud